New planets?

[Talisman]

The real problem

Why is that a problem? Just because you can\'t return it\'s pointless? What? I\'ve never done a return from the mun but I still have tons of fun when I make it there, I\'m sure someone would still be able to do an extreme mission to another planet with stock parts, plus, there are tons of add on parts that can suffice until harvester adds new parts.

[samstarman5]

I think the whole idea of planets, especially those of incredible distance, gas giants with many moons and so on will push KSP beyond currently feasible technologies. I mean, humans cannot currently reach Jupiter with manned missions, land, and return in any capacity as far as i know. I\'m wondering whether this game will end up as a realistic space simulator or a sci-fi solar system colonizer.

Where do you get that impression? Manned missions to Jupiter are quite possible with what we have today. There just isn\'t any motivation to. Why risk human lives when we can do it unmanned? There is a certain element in the space community that would just as soon keep man out of space and do it all unmanned. Why? It\'s cheaper. Not because it is unfeasible.

[Aegrim]

They need to add an asteroid that collides with Kerbin about 200 Kerbin days from the first time you launch something. Have to go up there and move it off course or it fails the game when it crashes.

[CaptainArbitrary]

Where do you get that impression? Manned missions to Jupiter are quite possible with what we have today.

That\'s really not the case, unfortunately. As with all things spacey, it comes back to the rocket equation. If you want to get people there and back in reasonable time, you\'d need incomprehensible propellant mass. If you don\'t want to get there and back in reasonable time, you need to lug enough consumables for years, and that takes up all the mass you saved by not using lots of propellant.

But even setting that aside —Kerbals don\'t eat or drink or breathe, sans mods —you basically can\'t do a single launch big enough to get a ship to another planet and back. Just as in real life, the workaround is multiple launches and orbital rendezvous, but if I had a nickel for every time I said 'Won\'t it be wonderful when docking is in the game,' I\'d have enough money to hire a team of people to do it.

[JupiterII]

They need to add an asteroid that collides with Kerbin about 200 Kerbin days from the first time you launch something. Have to go up there and move it off course or it fails the game when it crashes.

I think that a hard difficulty where random space related disasters can happen would be a good idea.

[Endeavour]

That\'s really not the case, unfortunately. As with all things spacey, it comes back to the rocket equation. If you want to get people there and back in reasonable time, you\'d need incomprehensible propellant mass. If you don\'t want to get there and back in reasonable time, you need to lug enough consumables for years, and that takes up all the mass you saved by not using lots of propellant.

But it is possible with technology we have today. It\'s not like the technology we have is physically incapable of making such a trip, and the only hope is new discovery. It\'s just a matter of intelligent planning and resources being properly allocated.

First, you can\'t get a stock rocket into orbit that has the power to take off, perform the transit, land, takeoff again, and make another long distance transit journey. And even if you could get suck a rocket to take off and make the trip, you still can\'t land it.

Have you seen the people on these forums? I can almost guarentee you that someone here is capable of this.

[Randox]

Why is that a problem? Just because you can\'t return it\'s pointless? What? I\'ve never done a return from the mun but I still have tons of fun when I make it there, I\'m sure someone would still be able to do an extreme mission to another planet with stock parts, plus, there are tons of add on parts that can suffice until harvester adds new parts.

Well, I suppose if you don\'t want to return, its all fine and dandy. I guess for me, I don\'t really enjoy driving a rover for extended periods of time, and I enjoy making two way trips (I only launch a rover when I want to look around. Right now I have one on Minimus that was dispatched to find my previous descent stage, and also to explore a nearby methane lake).

But when thinking of development order, there is also a consideration that you want to build from the ground up, rather than totally devlop one tower first. Since other planets would make use of pretty much every other thing they are planning on giving us, they will probably be one of the last things to be released.

[ManaaniWanderer]

If you use ion engines for transit you only need enough conventional rocket fuel to land and lift off with a conventional rocket. Leave the ions and return supplies in orbit, launch the lander then when your ready simply take off again an re-dock with the ion engine and supplies. If the craft has enough solar panels or a nuclear reactor the range would be limited only by crew supplies. Or just use a Brussard Ram Jet and never worry about fuel as you\'d be scooping up more hydrogen to fuel it the faster you went allowing you to burn even more hydrogen accelerating even faster.

[CaptainArbitrary]

If you use ion engines for transit you only need enough conventional rocket fuel to land and lift off with a conventional rocket.

Plus the reaction mass, plus about a thousand times more consumables than you\'d have needed using less ridiculous specific impulses, plus robots, because no human being could survive a ten-year trip in the equivalent of a really crappy 400-square-foot apartment without going insane.

Which is why we just send robots in the first place instead.

Or just use a Brussard Ram Jet

You know that\'s science fiction, right? It\'s not an actual thing that could actually exist. Even within the bounds of science fiction, that only works outside the heliopause anyway.

[ManaaniWanderer]

Even if you can only get .1g of acceleration if you thrust for the entire trip the journey will be a heck of a lot shorter then coasting for most of it.

[Talisman]

because no human being could survive a ten-year trip in the equivalent of a really crappy 400-square-foot apartment without going insane.

I really doubt this, do you have a source or are you just guessing?

[flaillomanz]

I really doubt this, do you have a source or are you just guessing?

Trust me, after a couple of weeks, the mind starts degrading. It\'s pretty much 'Cabin Fever'. There HAVE been studies on this sort of thing... in one of them, I vaguely recall the students involved in the test getting ultra-violent and nearly killing each other. Or something like that.

[samstarman5]

That\'s really not the case, unfortunately. As with all things spacey, it comes back to the rocket equation. If you want to get people there and back in reasonable time, you\'d need incomprehensible propellant mass. If you don\'t want to get there and back in reasonable time, you need to lug enough consumables for years, and that takes up all the mass you saved by not using lots of propellant.

Not all the consumables and other cargo would have to come on the same ship. All that would be needed would be enough to get there. Enough for the stay and return can be sent along at a later window that might even be a shorter trip. It would actually be more cost effective that way as opposed to sending it all up at once. You need to think outside of a single craft.

If you use ion engines for transit you only need enough conventional rocket fuel to land and lift off with a conventional rocket. Leave the ions and return supplies in orbit, launch the lander then when your ready simply take off again an re-dock with the ion engine and supplies. If the craft has enough solar panels or a nuclear reactor the range would be limited only by crew supplies. Or just use a Brussard Ram Jet and never worry about fuel as you\'d be scooping up more hydrogen to fuel it the faster you went allowing you to burn even more hydrogen accelerating even faster.

Even within a solar system where hydrogen would be more clumped together, you would still need to be hitting a decent percentage of light speed to make it efficient enough. That would also be hitting time dilation. Expect to see your grandchildren when you get back home.

[Talisman]

Trust me, after a couple of weeks, the mind starts degrading. It\'s pretty much 'Cabin Fever'. There HAVE been studies on this sort of thing... in one of them, I vaguely recall the students involved in the test getting ultra-violent and nearly killing each other. Or something like that.

No.

Though I do think that some people would go 'crazy' in situations like that, highly trainer professionals that have wanted to do those things their entire lives would not (ie, astronauts)

They\'ve done similar things for years and nothing bad happened at all, see the simulated mars mission (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-04/world/world_europe_russia-simulatedmars-trip_1_spaceflight-simulated-mars-space-travel?_s=PM:EUROPE)

[Khrissetti]

The real problem is that there is no point adding another plannet (at least not one with an atmosphere), because you would never be able to leave it. There are two problems.

As someone else has said, I think you underestimate the Kerbanauts on this forum. Has anybody here built a ship capable of launching from kerbin, orbiting, landing, then leaving again? Perhaps a spaceplane? If so then the (KSP) technology already exists for return interplanetary single-craft ships.

Add in docking/refueling and the task (at least in KSP terms) becomes relatively simple.

[samstarman5]

The real problem is that there is no point adding another plannet (at least not one with an atmosphere), because you would never be able to leave it. There are two problems.

As someone else has said, I think you underestimate the Kerbanauts on this forum. Has anybody here built a ship capable of launching from kerbin, orbiting, landing, then leaving again? Perhaps a spaceplane? If so then the (KSP) technology already exists for return interplanetary single-craft ships.

Add in docking/refueling and the task (at least in KSP terms) becomes relatively simple.

There have been those who have stated they could do three take-offs and landings on Kerbin. Of course there is the chance there will be a rocky world with a higher gravity and/or denser atmosphere changing the equations, but I have faith in the kerbonauts here that they can pull it off with the current stock inventory. Though I have no doubt there are also going to be more items added to that inventory, as well.

Ignore the naysayers. Jeb does.

[Khrissetti]

This sounds like a challenge to me, preparing a craft for interplanetary travel. It would need to be able to launch, orbit, land on the Mun (to simulate an airless world) and Kerbin(to simulate an atmosphere-covered world), launch back into space, orbit, then land safely again.

[Aegrim]

There have been those who have stated they could do three take-offs and landings on Kerbin. Of course there is the chance there will be a rocky world with a higher gravity and/or denser atmosphere changing the equations, but I have faith in the kerbonauts here that they can pull it off with the current stock inventory. Though I have no doubt there are also going to be more items added to that inventory, as well.

Ignore the naysayers. Jeb does.

We had a challenge to attempt to do that, here\'s a video from one of my R&D tests.

[rkman]

But it is possible with technology we have today. It\'s not like the technology we have is physically incapable of making such a trip,

Maybe, but there are other considerations besides physical capability: preparation time, mission time and cost.

NASA for one seems to think a manned mission to Jupiter is not feasible today:

'In 2003, NASA proposed a program called Human Outer Planets Exploration (HOPE) that involved a manned mission to the Galilean moons.[65] NASA has projected a possible attempt some time in the 2040s'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Jupiter#Manned_exploration

This PhD from Cornell University thinks a manned mission to Jupiter is 'somewhat impractical':

A Theoretical Mission to Jupiter’s Icy Moon

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/08/mission-to-europa/

'For starters, it’d take about five years for a rocket to reach the moon, with the same amount of time being required for the return journey. Also, once the astronauts arrived, the radiation in the Jovian system would mean that any trips beyond a thick set of shielding would be somewhat on the toasty side.'

[flaillomanz]

No.

Though I do think that some people would go 'crazy' in situations like that, highly trainer professionals that have wanted to do those things their entire lives would not (ie, astronauts)

They\'ve done similar things for years and nothing bad happened at all, see the simulated mars mission (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-04/world/world_europe_russia-simulatedmars-trip_1_spaceflight-simulated-mars-space-travel?_s=PM:EUROPE)

Ah, but in their subconscious, they actually know that it is a simulation... they know it will end.

...Okay, I\'m just jealous that they get to go into space as a career. But my point still stands.

[Rocketscience101]

You guys should check out the mars association in the fan base section. Here is some stuff you could really work with.

[Don_Draper]

*shrug* took me half an hour to get to Minmus and land safely, using a rocket that wasn\'t even designed for that mission profile. It was a first try kind of deal, and I was winging it.

I think anyone who says that players couldn\'t reach new planets using the current stock parts is sorely underestimating the people who play the game. I\'m just a chump who\'s winging it, and I manage to get places in the game. I mean there are people on the forum who have made topography maps of some of the Munar surface, people who are taking off, landing, taking off, landing - just insane amounts of skill on display here!

Bet you $100 that they\'ll have a landing on a new planet sussed out within a couple of hours of release (whenever that might be).

[illectro]

I can guarantee you that I will be able to fly a landing and return mission from a martian analogue when they add them. my heavy designs have the delta-v and I\'ve demonstrated the ability to perform the Kerbin->Mun->Kerbin->mun->Kerbin mission using a stock vehicle.

The thing that will kill any joy is being stuck at x10,000 time acceleration, we need larger values.

Of course, the game still doesn\'t model the capsule environment, and it would be nice if at some point consideration were given to things like radiation and mission duration, if you want an interplanetary mission then you need to leave the protection of kerbin\'s magnetic field which means more shielding on the capsule. Also, for a hypothetical Jupiter mission many people don\'t realise that the near jovian environment has huge radiation belts that would need even more shielding to protect the astronauts.

Anyway I just hope that the forthcoming planets are sane, they can\'t be too close together, or too massive.

[Richy teh space man]

Assuming KSP is realistic in the sense of gas giant radiation belts, then some of the outer moons of it may be survivable (like Callisto) and still be covered by the gas giants magnetic field.

Of course covering the gap between a home planet and the gas giant is going to be a different story..

[SunJumper]

Going Kerbin -> Mun -> Kerbin -> Mun -> Kerbin is not the same as going from Kerbin to Mars and back. To do this, go from Kerbin to Kerbol orbit, return, launch again, and return again.

In terms of new planets, what we need is an angle read-out. We click on the object, and the game draws a line between that body and the body it orbits, and another line between you and the same body, and then gives that angle, so you can accurately time return burns.

I would also think the devs would represent Jupiter/Saturn as one planet, and the ice giants the same. Illectro, if the Devs added a Hadean world, would you be able to get an object to orbit it? Or a Hermean world?